At its October 27 meeting, the Brown Corporation took on one of the
issues generating the most student passion on campus these days and
made a decision that left many advocates disappointed and angry. By
electing not to purge the endowment of its holdings in the largest U.S.
coal-mining and coal-burning utility companies, Brown joined such
schools as Harvard and Middlebury in saying no to coal divestment.

“Students see this as one of the most pressing issues of our time,”
President Christina Paxson says. “They’re passionate about it, and they
want to do something about it. I can understand that, and I’m
empathetic.”

Over the past year the student organization Brown Divest Coal, which
is part of a national effort to pressure schools and municipalities to
purge their endowments of investments in coal producers and users, has
sponsored lectures, protests, and petitions to educate the campus about
the environmental devastation caused by mining and burning coal. In
fall 2012 the group asked Brown’s Advisory Committee on Corporate
Responsibility on Investment Policies—ACCRIP, a working group of
students, faculty, staff, and alumni—to consider the ethical
ramifications of coal investments. A sympathetic ACCRIP recommended
that the University divest from coal’s biggest U.S. producers and
consumers—the so-called Dirty 15. The Corporation took up the issue
last May and appointed an ad hoc committee to investigate further. The
full governing board confronted the issue at its October meeting.

Many critics of the Corporation’s decision wanted Brown to make a
symbolic statement about the dangers of coal. But as Paxson explained
in an October 27 letter to the Brown community and in a recent BAM
interview, the University’s investment policies stipulate a specific
set of criteria for selling off a class of holdings, criteria that were
met in 2003, for example, when the University divested from tobacco
companies. Making strong symbolic statements, Paxson says, is not one
of those criteria.

“Corporation members agreed with ACCRIP that coal causes ‘social
harm’—a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion for divestment,” she
says. Brown’s policies require either “that the social harm be so great
that it’s inconsistent with the mission and values of the institution
to hold that investment in its portfolio, or it has to be the case that
divestment would make a difference.” Because coal-heavy investments
represent just 0.1 percent of Brown’s portfolio, she explained that
divesting from coal companies would not influence the behavior of those
companies.

Paxson also explains that the Corporation did not agree with ACCRIP’s
argument that coal’s social harm is grave enough to warrant divesting.
“It’s not that coal isn’t harmful stuff—it’s pretty horrible,” she
says. “But for the foreseeable future there are not many alternatives
[when it comes to energy production], unfortunately. Coal powers 40
percent of the electricity in the world. If we divest from coal, what
does that mean?”

In early November, the Brown Daily Herald published a poll indicating
that 44 percent of responding students still supported divesting from
coal, although 20 percent had no opinion on the Corporation’s decision.
On November 7, Brown Divest Coal sponsored protests that culminated in
a silent sit-in outside President Paxson’s office. “We will continue to
champion our arguments for divestment,” David Katzevich ’16 read from a
statement, “but today we protest in silence because we feel the
administration has silenced the conversation.”

“What I find frustrating,” Paxson says, “is that people see this
decision as an endorsement of coal, and it’s not. It’s a realization
that coal is not like tobacco, which has no social value; coal serves a
purpose in the world,” particularly in developing countries that rely
on coal for heat and industry.

Instead of pulling out of coal investments, Paxson says Brown should
be striving to curb climate change by doing what universities do best:
research. “We’re doing work on carbon recapture,” she points out.
“We’re doing work on changing behavior to reduce energy use. We’re
doing work on policy issues around climate change. And I think we can
do more to help communities take the actions that will reduce the
threat of climate change going forward.”

Illustration by Timothy Cook

Comments (1)

01/23/14

I wouldn't have thought divestment from coal to be such a difficult maneuver. Especially as it represents but .1% of Brown's investment portfolio.

Alas, Brown's reluctance exemplifies the inertia and myopia that which most financial entities treat the issue of climate change.

Paxson's comment that "there aren't many alternatives" to coal is especially frustrating, and hardly accurate - especially here in the U.S., and even less so and in Brown's investment portfolio. It saddens me that the clear and imminent threat of climate change is ignored and trivialized, until the "market" or some disaster makes it politic to address.

As a purported institution of leadership and vision, Brown should make the statement, acknowledging climate change as a reality that can and must be confronted. Let's not brush it away with hand-wavy and legalese arguments.

Thank you to the students who are open-eyed enough to push for divestiture.

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it